[Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Thu Oct 12 10:25:21 PDT 2006
According to http://www.boise-idaho-real-estate.com/ the average (not median as you used) home price in Boise is $128,500, not $123,000. The average figure is based upon actual sales known to the realtor members of the website cited. The median data you cite are calculated from those mortgage companies who choose to give it (not all do, especially banks which finance the higher end transactions) and is $125,767, not $123,000, and may be out of date. Further, it is very interesting to see the median home sales price in Boise according to the Money Magazine source http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/snapshots/PL1608830.html you cited is over $183,000. Why didn't you use this figure? Did you shop for the lowest figure without regard for its accuracy? Perhaps you are related to Doug Farris or Dale Courtney.
To be conservative, we'll use the $128,500 figure though Googling brings up several website which claim higher amounts.
Conservatively, the buyer's share of the closing costs on a $128,500 home sale exceed 3%. Hence the average closing cost exceeds $3,840.
Hence the total amount of the transaction minimally is $132,340.
Assuming the best case, that a buyer has the full 20% down (generally not true of first time buyers now, or those buying on the contingency of selling their current home) the amount to be financed is $105,872.
A fixed interest rate 30 year mortgage at 6% then demands a monthly mortgage payment of $635.
The property tax rate in Boise is approximately $17.00 per $1,000 of assessed value less $75,000. Therefore, that tax is $909.50 per year assuming no LIDs or special assessments. This is $76.00 per month.
Plain vanilla property structure insurance (required by lenders) for a $128,500 home in the Boise area with a $500 deductible is a minimum $480 per year or $40 per month.
Average maintenance costs varies over time. For a long term period, the most conservative estimate and that hyped by housing constructors is 1.25% per year of the home's value or about $1,606 per year for a $128,500 home. [My personal experience having owned several homes is that it runs over 2% per year. Our current home has had a maintenance cost of about 60% of its initial purchase price spread over 16 years.] See http://www.doityourself.com/stry/maintenancecost for a simple look at the issue, or ask long term homeowners about these figures.
Hence, maintenance costs per month average a minimum $133 per month for a $128,500 home.
Hence the average total monthly cost of home ownership in Boise with the above conservative assumptions is:
635 + 76 + 40 + 133 = $884
Hence, the minimum average cost of a home in Boise assuming a 20% down is $884, not $700.
[If the Money Magazine figure of $183,000+ is used as an average home sales price then the monthly cost of owning an average price home is approximately $1,300.]
However, if less than 20% is put down on a $128,500 home, more is financed, there will be higher monthly mortgage payments. In addition, mortgage insurance is then also required, thus adding about $80 per month to the cost.
http://www.buyincomeproperties.com/artman/publish/Let_the_Market_Eliminate_Your_Private_Mortgage_Insurance.shtml
Read your own words about research. Perhaps you were unaware of the cost of structure insurance or the cost of maintenance, particularly if you have never had the bitter-sweet experience of owning a home. Homes have wear and tear which must be addressed right from the first day of ownership; many times there are some unpleasant surprises. The cost of maintaining a lawn and landscaping in a city is not trivial either. If you do not maintain your home properly, you risk loss of your insurance coverage, and then a possible default on your mortgage, depending on its terms.
Assume the numbers you quote about new driver's license applications are correct. They do not in themselves support your conclusion that Californians are driving out native Moscow residents or that native Moscow residents are leaving because of the cost of living or the lack of employment opportunities.
First, many of those driver's license applications represent applications from out of state higher education students and in some cases members of their families who must apply for Idaho driver's licenses. See http://www.dmv.org/id-idaho/apply-license.php These people are part of a naturally transient population, few will remain in Moscow after their sojourn at the area's higher education institutions. They will be part of the out-migration, but never were part of the native Moscow population. Out-migration then depends in part on the enrollment figures of the University of Idaho -- the more that come in, the more that will eventually leave.
Secondly, you argue that native Moscow residents are leaving on the basis of a small decline in the population of the entire Latah County -- a bait and switch fallacy. Perhaps it is an illusion, but in the 16+ years we have been here, there has been a massive amount of new houses and apartment units constructed and comparatively very few dwelling units demolished in Moscow. Hence, it seems reasonable to assume that the population of Moscow itself is not declining. See also http://www.city-data.com/city/Moscow-Idaho.html which shows a 2.7% increase in population for the city over the last five years.
Thirdly, many of the lower paying jobs in Moscow are filled by transient students who glut the lower-skills employment pool, and thus take jobs that might be taken elsewhere by city residents and will do so no matter how many lower paying jobs it is reasonable to expect to be created.
Fourthly, I would guess that it would be very difficult to determine exactly how many native Moscow residents are remaining in the various age strata let alone how many are or have in various past periods out-migrated and why.
Fifthly, you argue that native Moscow residents are leaving because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities:
Some natives of most cities leave for a wide variety of reasons. None of the data you have produced shows that it is specifically native Moscow residents who are leaving or why whoever is leaving are leaving. You are only guessing about the number and why. Because of the university and its transient population, the kind of out-migration occurring and the reasons for it are very difficult to assess. There is some data available, but I do not have access to it and do not know about its reliability or validity. Guessing is not research, and claiming guessing is research is lying, and like your $700 figure above, a Courtney/Farris type of sham like the one we saw yesterday.
However, I would guess (and it is nothing but a guess since I have no hard data) that some young native Moscow residents do leave. There are a number of native young here who are the children of educated university and other professionals. The percentage of such going on to higher education is usually higher than that of an average city. Many go to the university here, at least in the beginning. Obviously, there are not jobs or enough job in specialized areas* in Moscow for these students when they graduate and probably will never be, hence out-migration. Some of these young go elsewhere for their higher education from the get-go, hence out-migration.
*If a native Moscow resident earns a degree in chemical engineering or French while at the University of Idaho, the odds of finding a commensurate position in Moscow are slim and not likely to change very fast. Likewise, there are not enough teaching positions in Moscow to create opportunities for all the native Moscow residents who earn a teaching degree.
Be sure to read the above carefully. I am pointing out that your facts are incorrect/incomplete and/or your arguments are fallacious and do not support your conclusions. It is possible that the conclusions you draw might be partly true. You just haven't supported those conclusions with the right facts and correct argument.
It would be nice if there would be more higher paying jobs in Moscow. Besides the obvious benefits, higher paying jobs also indirectly bring about more lower paying jobs. Also, it may not have occurred to you but people sometimes choose to live in areas with a higher cost of living because of the quality of life they wish to enjoy. They consciously estimate and make a trade off. The WalMart dispute was in part a dispute over the quality of life in Moscow.
If you want see how a formerly very nice city with a highly desirable quality of life for its then residents has been screwed up and changed for the much worse in the opinion of many of the long-time residents, visit Bend, Oregon and surrounds. I hope that this does not happen to Moscow.
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Donovan Arnold
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
Wayne,
You wrote:
"Whether these numbers you present are true or not, they do not support the allegations you made in the paragraph I cited. That paragraph was a gross exaggeration and when I was a kid, would have been called a bald-faced lie."
In response to me stating:
"In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house. Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities."
OK Wayne, since you seem to unable to research simple facts on your own, I will break it down so can follow:
First Sentence of quote:
"In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house. "
PROOF: Math doesn't Lie, therefore, lets use it:
Look on any mortgage calculator and you will see that a $123,000 (average home price) home mortgage is less than $700 a month.
A family that puts down $20,000 down on an average home in Boise, at 6% interest rate (about avg.) pays only $600 a month. Count in property taxes, that is about $700 a month. If you don't believe it, do the calculation yourself:
http://www.mortgage-calc.com/amortization/amortizationscheduleandcalculator.html
Or find a calculator yourself by doing a search on the Internet. It is pretty simple.
Second phrase in the quote:
"Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year"
Proof: Again, listed on:
http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Moscow.html
Gross Income for an entire household in Moscow, two people working:
$30,125.0
Third Phrase:
"our county population is shrinking"
PROOF: According to the Idaho Department of Commerce/Labor http://lmi.idaho.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/4012_fyi_urban.pdf#search=%22Latah%20County%20Population%20declined%22
Latah lost about 200 residents from 2000-2005 while the state gained record population increases.
Last Statement:
"native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians"
It is true, call the DMV (883-7216).
They replace California driver's licenses more than any other with the exception of Washington which is right next door. Californians are coming in, Idahoans are going out.
And no they are not college students, they don't have to change driver's licenses only permanent residents do.
So before you call me a liar, do some research first. I shouldn't have to prove already well established facts that ANY freshman high school student can verify with a simple Internet search.
Best,
_DJA
Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
Whether these numbers you present are true or not, they do not support the allegations you made in the paragraph I cited. That paragraph was a gross exaggeration and when I was a kid, would have been called a bald-faced lie.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: Donovan Arnold
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
Wayne,
Affordability of a place in Boise is less than that of Moscow. If you don't know that, you are living in another world. Just do a little research will ya: Here I will get you started:
Consider:
http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Boise.html
and
http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Moscow.html
and even:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/snapshots/PL1608830.html
Boise:
$58,489 Average Family Income
$125,767.0 Average Home Price
1977 is the average year build for a home
5.4 rooms is the average size of a home
Compare to Moscow:
$46,331 Medium Family Income (not College students)
$128,500.0 Average Home Price
1973 Average Age of a Home
4.9 Rooms is Average Size of Home.
http://www.nextag.com/home-mortgage/2/ID/Boise.html
The numbers don't lie Wayne. If you are paying more for a home, earning less, the house is smaller, and older, it is less affordable. I hope you understand that.
Talk to anyone that has lived both in Moscow and Boise, that works for living, if they think it is cheaper to live in Moscow than Boise. Now, if I got $1 million in the bank or am living on fixed income, Moscow is cheaper, but if you are working for an income, it is more affordable to live in Boise than Moscow.
Look at what you get for $800 in Boise, and what you get for $800 in Moscow for rent. Then take 15% off your income in Moscow and see which is the better deal. Good grief, I would think you were oblivious to the housing rates in Moscow and housing boom in Boise.
Best,
_DJA
Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
Donovan writes:
"In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house. Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities."
If you want to be taken seriously please tell us the sources of the above information and expand the details: What percentage of 3 - 4 BR homes in Boise can be had on a regular mortgage for $700.00/month? What is the average cost of a 3 - 4 BR house in the Boise Metro area? What is the average mortgage amount? What is the average monthly payment? What is the average income in Moscow when students are not counted in the data? How many Moscow natives were displaced by Californians beyond those that would have left anyway? How are these numbers different for similar sized cities in the west which are islands in rural agricultural or forest resource areas?
Since the issue of water quality and quantity is important to many on this list, please give the sources for your information or resign yourself to be regarded once and for all times as the area's largest but not cleverest fabulist.
Donovan writes:
"I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out. Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining."
Let's see. The aquifers are declining since they are not being replenished as quickly worldwide and not because water is being pumped from them. Hmmm. So pumping water from aquifers has little or no effect on their levels? Please give some scientific sources for this amazing statement including sources for data that purport to show that precipitation is declining globally. Is it your contention that if we were to stop pumping groundwater, the levels would still be falling at the same rate? Perhaps a solution to your great knowledge would be a simple Googling on "global aquifers" and a few minutes reading.
Since the aquifers are falling for whatever cause or causes, it seems to me that is all the more reason to conserve.
After you Google on "global aquifers," try Googling to discover the problems with using surface water for urban use and what the project urban use is over the next few years.
Without commenting on your Naylor Farms remarks in depth, it should be asked that if Naylor Farms cannot even retain an effective attorney who can correctly fill out a CUP application form or a competent, believable geologist, is it reasonable to expect that they could even begin to competently design, finance, and construct a large privately financed public works project?
There is no doubt that the cost to taxpayers for water and many other natural resources will increase sharply over the next few years. This reasons for this rise includes the rise in population, dwindling resources, and a sharp rise in the long term ecological debt we have now and continue to accumulate at an accelerating pace.
This community has lots of citizens that do not understand the local or global water resource issue, do not want to understand it, have all kinds of absurd, ill-defined plans to solve it, and do not want to pay for its solution in any way -- financially or change in habits.
Old, and coming from a childhood in communities where most of the citizens then faced major problems and worked together, more or less, to try to solve them, I find the cultural shift to wide scale me-ism a sign that worst times are to come.
I am glad that my life expectancy is short so that I won't have to see the near term ecological catastrophes and the sufferings wrought by them, and won't have to listen to the lame excuses of those that by their abysmal ignorance, uninformed opinionating, and selfish me-centered inaction helped bring them about.
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Donovan Arnold
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
Joe,
I can tell you this. Although I think it is always a good idea to have a plan B and even a plan C and possibly a plan D, I am not willing as a taxpayer to pay for a reservoir. I think it is just another big expensive government project that people cannot afford. I mean good grief, it costs $1000 to rent a 3 bedroom apartment in Moscow, people cannot afford it anymore. In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house. Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities.
If you want a reservoir, you have to pay for it through private means, not taxes, which means you have to get a private company like Naylor Farms to do it. If they can engineer a mining operation, they can engineer digging a hole and filling it with water.
I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out. Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining.
Second, I don't want to leave behind this aquifer water for people. I think it is nasty, smelly, bad tasting water. We have fresh water springs less than 50 miles from here, don't you think people of the future, 200-300 years from now would rather be drinking that than the stale water that corrodes our pipes and smells like sulfur if your water tank isn't over 130 degrees? I know I would.
If we took two years to build one mile of pipe, we would get to a fresh healthy water supply in less than 100 years, a good 200 years before our supply ran out.
I think speculation and research is a good thing, and so is coming up with a plan B for our water situation. However, asking for money for a water reservoir with the limited knowledge we have is going to get a big NO from Moscow property owners which make up most the vote.
Thinking realistically, you aren't going to get a reservoir anytime in the near future with tax dollars. Naylor Farms is more most likely our best shot.
I suppose lots of people, and MCA are going to spend lots of time pushing this idea, some will use scare tactics, but it in the end, it isn't going to happen.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
Dear Donovan,
Let me preface this by saying that I know very little about water; I know more since last night -- thanks to our wonderful panel! -- but that is still very little compared to other folks. Here are some brief thoughts, though.
1/ The kind of area needed for a reservoir is one thing; the kind of area needed for a mine is another. Why think that they would coincide? Others can speak to this issue with more authority, but I remain skeptical that a mine can be easily transformed into a reservoir.
2/ What I especially liked about last night's meeting is that we discussed an issue that was not "in our face." Yet it is an issue that needs to be dealt with soon. The fact is that we use more water than is being replaced. As long as the water supply is not endless, it will eventually end. What to do?
A reservoir is one possible solution. Water conservation is another one. But CAN we conserve enough water to solve the problem? Shouldn't we also look at other solutions? We're just beginning this dialogue, I think. (We're just beginning it as a COMMUNITY. It was clear last night that there are quite a few folks who have been thinking about these issues for a while.)
3/ One thing that came across last night is that we are in a rather unique situation, water-wise. It is possible that there is a large -- though limited -- body of water that is currently available to Moscow. We need to think about how we are going to use it and -- until we can provide a way of increasing that amount -- we should plan to use it wisely.
Naylor farms has plans to use a great deal of our current supply. Forgetting about the other costs of their enterprise, it is questionable whether -- short of some long term solution to our current water problem -- we should invest our water capital to meet their ends.
4/ I wish Naylor farms would hold a public forum similar to the one held last night. Which is just to say, I wish that Naylor farms would give me the feeling that they gave a rat's -ss about how I and others think about these issues.
I challenge Naylor farms to approach this problem in a way that illustrates their concern for the overall community. It is our water and the supply is limited. If Naylor farms wants to use some of that supply, then they need to tell us how we might benefit from their use. So far I have not seen the benefit. Nor have I seen any recognition on their part that there is a genuine problem here. Currently, there is just a limited supply of water. We might debate on the amount but that the supply is limited is not an issue for debate.
Until we can figure out a way to increase our current supply of water -- through a reservoir, conservation, or some other means -- it seems irresponsible to allow Naylor farms access to it for their own personal needs.
Note that these comments are reflective of my own thoughts, and not those of any other organization with which I might be affiliated (the members of which likely know more about these issues than I do).
Best, Joe
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
Joe and Bruce,
I would love to attend your meeting, however, I cannot. You guys really need to check with me before you schedule these meetings to make sure I am free, cause you know, I work and go to school and right now I am also sick. ; )
But my advice is that you work with Naylor Farms to meet both your goals. Maybe the money raised from mining can be used to pay for the reservoir. Working with people you have disagreements with rather than shutting them down all the time might work better to meet some of your long term goals.
Is there any reason why the water used by Naylor Farms cannot be used to fill the reservoir? Is there any reason why the hole they dig cannot be the reservoir? Is there any reason why the taxes and fines they pay the county to mine cannot be used to pay for the project? I think a reservoir on top of a hill just a mile or town out of town is a perfect place to have one.
Those are the questions I would ask if I could attend this meeting.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell wrote:Come to the meeting, Donovan! Note that the title of the meeting is a question, not a statement. We're going to discuss the plusses and minuses and try to help folks reach an informed decision on the matter.
--
Joe Campbell
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
Won't digging a reservoir cause health problems with dust being less then 1.5 miles away from Moscow? And won't it use a lot of water?
Why don't we just have Naylor Farms dig us a hole, take the clay and dirt away, and use the water to fill the reservoir?
Curious minds want to know.
Best,
_DJA
Bruce and Jean Livingston wrote: Reminder: MCA meeting on whether Moscow should consider building a water reservoir.
MCA General Public Meeting on Monday Oct. 9 at 1912 Building @ 7p.m.
Water Solutions ââ,¬â?o Is Moscow Ready for a Reservoir?
Panelists:
Jerry Fairley, Professor of Hydrogeology, U of Idaho
Dianne French, founder of Palouse Water Conservation Network
Gary Riedner, Moscow City Supervisor
Steve Robischon, Exec. Mgr. of Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee
Mark Solomon, Palouse Water Conservation Network
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2Ã,¢/min or less.
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengerâ?Ts low PC-to-Phone call rates.
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan writes:
"In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house. Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities."
If you want to be taken seriously please tell us the sources of the above information and expand the details: What percentage of 3 - 4 BR homes in Boise can be had on a regular mortgage for $700.00/month? What is the average cost of a 3 - 4 BR house in the Boise Metro area? What is the average mortgage amount? What is the average monthly payment? What is the average income in Moscow when students are not counted in the data? How many Moscow natives were displaced by Californians beyond those that would have left anyway? How are these numbers different for similar sized cities in the west which are islands in rural ag or forest resource areas?
Since the issue of water quality and quantity is important to many on this list, please give the sources for your information or resign yourself to be regarded once and for all times as the area's largest but not cleverest fabulist.
Donovan writes:
"I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out. Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining."
Let's see. The aquifers are declining since they are not being replenished as quickly worldwide and not because water is being pumped from them. Hmmm. So pumping water from aquifers has little or no effect on their levels? Please give some scientific sources for this amazing statement including sources for data that purport to show that precipitation is declining globally. Is it your contention that if we were to stop pumping groundwater, the levels would still be falling at the same rate? Perhaps a solution to your great knowledge would be a simple Googling on "global aquifers" and a few minutes reading.
Since the aquifers are falling for whatever cause or causes, it seems to me that is all the more reason to conserve.
After you Google on "global aquifers," try Googling to discover the problems with using surface water for urban use and what the project urban use is over the next few years.
Without commenting on your Naylor Farms remarks in depth, it should be asked that if Naylor Farms cannot even retain an effective attorney who could correctly fill out a CUP application form or a competent, believable geologist, is it reasonable to expect that they could even begin to competently design, finance, and construct a large privately financed public works project?
There is no doubt that the cost to taxpayers for water and many other natural resources will increase sharply over the next few years. This reasons for this rise includes the rise in population, dwindling resources, and a sharp rise in the long term ecological debt we have now and continue to accumulate at an accelerating pace.
The community has lots of citizens that do not understand the local or global water resource issue, do not want to understand it, have all kinds of absurd, ill-defined plans to solve it, and do not want to pay for its solution.
Old, and coming from a childhood in communities where most of the citizens then faced major problems and worked together, more or less, try to solve them, I find the cultural shift to wide scale me-ism a sign that worst times are to come.
I am glad that my life expectancy is short so that I won't have to see the near term ecological catastrophes and the sufferings wrought by them, and won't have to listen to the lame excuses of those that by their abysmal ignorance, uninformed opinionating, and selfish inaction helped bring them about.
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Donovan Arnold
To: Joe Campbell
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is Moscow Ready for Reservoir?
Joe,
I can tell you this. Although I think it is always a good idea to have a plan B and even a plan C and possibly a plan D, I am not willing as a taxpayer to pay for a reservoir. I think it is just another big expensive government project that people cannot afford. I mean good grief, it costs $1000 to rent a 3 bedroom apartment in Moscow, people cannot afford it anymore. In Boise mortgages are only like $700 for a three or four bedroom house. Jobs in Moscow pay less than 30K a year, our county population is shrinking and native Moscow residents are being replaced by Californians and others not from here because of the cost of living and lack of job opportunities.
If you want a reservoir, you have to pay for it through private means, not taxes, which means you have to get a private company like Naylor Farms to do it. If they can engineer a mining operation, they can engineer digging a hole and filling it with water.
I don't think that conservation is the solution to our problem. I think water levels are not decreasing because of our consumption rate, but rather because of a shift in global weather patterns. Even if Moscow residents left town all today, the water would still run out. Just look at all the other aquifers around the world that are also declining.
Second, I don't want to leave behind this aquifer water for people. I think it is nasty, smelly, bad tasting water. We have fresh water springs less than 50 miles from here, don't you think people of the future, 200-300 years from now would rather be drinking that than the stale water that corrodes our pipes and smells like sulfur if your water tank isn't over 130 degrees? I know I would.
If we took two years to build one mile of pipe, we would get to a fresh healthy water supply in less than 100 years, a good 200 years before our supply ran out.
I think speculation and research is a good thing, and so is coming up with a plan B for our water situation. However, asking for money for a water reservoir with the limited knowledge we have is going to get a big NO from Moscow property owners which make up most the vote.
Thinking realistically, you aren't going to get a reservoir anytime in the near future with tax dollars. Naylor Farms is more most likely our best shot.
I suppose lots of people, and MCA are going to spend lots of time pushing this idea, some will use scare tactics, but it in the end, it isn't going to happen.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
Dear Donovan,
Let me preface this by saying that I know very little about water; I know more since last night -- thanks to our wonderful panel! -- but that is still very little compared to other folks. Here are some brief thoughts, though.
1/ The kind of area needed for a reservoir is one thing; the kind of area needed for a mine is another. Why think that they would coincide? Others can speak to this issue with more authority, but I remain skeptical that a mine can be easily transformed into a reservoir.
2/ What I especially liked about last night's meeting is that we discussed an issue that was not "in our face." Yet it is an issue that needs to be dealt with soon. The fact is that we use more water than is being replaced. As long as the water supply is not endless, it will eventually end. What to do?
A reservoir is one possible solution. Water conservation is another one. But CAN we conserve enough water to solve the problem? Shouldn't we also look at other solutions? We're just beginning this dialogue, I think. (We're just beginning it as a COMMUNITY. It was clear last night that there are quite a few folks who have been thinking about these issues for a while.)
3/ One thing that came across last night is that we are in a rather unique situation, water-wise. It is possible that there is a large -- though limited -- body of water that is currently available to Moscow. We need to think about how we are going to use it and -- until we can provide a way of increasing that amount -- we should plan to use it wisely.
Naylor farms has plans to use a great deal of our current supply. Forgetting about the other costs of their enterprise, it is questionable whether -- short of some long term solution to our current water problem -- we should invest our water capital to meet their ends.
4/ I wish Naylor farms would hold a public forum similar to the one held last night. Which is just to say, I wish that Naylor farms would give me the feeling that they gave a rat's -ss about how I and others think about these issues.
I challenge Naylor farms to approach this problem in a way that illustrates their concern for the overall community. It is our water and the supply is limited. If Naylor farms wants to use some of that supply, then they need to tell us how we might benefit from their use. So far I have not seen the benefit. Nor have I seen any recognition on their part that there is a genuine problem here. Currently, there is just a limited supply of water. We might debate on the amount but that the supply is limited is not an issue for debate.
Until we can figure out a way to increase our current supply of water -- through a reservoir, conservation, or some other means -- it seems irresponsible to allow Naylor farms access to it for their own personal needs.
Note that these comments are reflective of my own thoughts, and not those of any other organization with which I might be affiliated (the members of which likely know more about these issues than I do).
Best, Joe
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
Joe and Bruce,
I would love to attend your meeting, however, I cannot. You guys really need to check with me before you schedule these meetings to make sure I am free, cause you know, I work and go to school and right now I am also sick. ; )
But my advice is that you work with Naylor Farms to meet both your goals. Maybe the money raised from mining can be used to pay for the reservoir. Working with people you have disagreements with rather than shutting them down all the time might work better to meet some of your long term goals.
Is there any reason why the water used by Naylor Farms cannot be used to fill the reservoir? Is there any reason why the hole they dig cannot be the reservoir? Is there any reason why the taxes and fines they pay the county to mine cannot be used to pay for the project? I think a reservoir on top of a hill just a mile or town out of town is a perfect place to have one.
Those are the questions I would ask if I could attend this meeting.
Best,
_DJA
Joe Campbell wrote:Come to the meeting, Donovan! Note that the title of the meeting is a question, not a statement. We're going to discuss the plusses and minuses and try to help folks reach an informed decision on the matter.
--
Joe Campbell
---- Donovan Arnold wrote:
=============
Won't digging a reservoir cause health problems with dust being less then 1.5 miles away from Moscow? And won't it use a lot of water?
Why don't we just have Naylor Farms dig us a hole, take the clay and dirt away, and use the water to fill the reservoir?
Curious minds want to know.
Best,
_DJA
Bruce and Jean Livingston wrote: Reminder: MCA meeting on whether Moscow should consider building a water reservoir.
MCA General Public Meeting on Monday Oct. 9 at 1912 Building @ 7p.m.
Water Solutions ââ,¬â?o Is Moscow Ready for a Reservoir?
Panelists:
Jerry Fairley, Professor of Hydrogeology, U of Idaho
Dianne French, founder of Palouse Water Conservation Network
Gary Riedner, Moscow City Supervisor
Steve Robischon, Exec. Mgr. of Palouse Basin Aquifer Committee
Mark Solomon, Palouse Water Conservation Network
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2Ã,¢/min or less.
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengerâ?Ts low PC-to-Phone call rates.
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= =======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. =======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061012/3acc9659/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list